Cc: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@...>, Ray Lee <ray-lk@...>, Matt Mackall <mpm@...>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...>, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>, William Lee Irwin III <wli@...>, David Chinner <dgc@...>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...>
And yet you have a more strict claim than I do. If you are right, I'll be
right, too, because two times less-than-4K is less tham 8K. If I'm wrong
and 8K is not enough, you must be wrong, too, because you can impossibly
fit more than 8K into 4K+4K. That's the law of mathematics.
Why do you insist on 4Kstacks being good as long as there is _one_ usevase
not crashing the kernel? _All_ usecases have to be safe!
, which are a completely different thing which was bundled to 4K-stacks
because you need more than 4K,
I don't want my stack to overflow in order to be theoretically able to
prove it does not overflow. I'd rather go for 8K+4K-stacks, and if _you_
have done the proof _you_ wanted to make, we can talk again about
4K-stacks. Then I'll just add up the maximum stack usages and have the
proof that 8K stacks are safe.
I claim, you can store 5k + 3k on the 8k stack, where 5k is something like
the current worst case for non-interrupt stack and 3k is plenty for
interrupts. Thousands of stable systems with 8K stacks support my claim.
You claimed with 4k + 4k, there is not less available stack space.
(At least for usecases you are interested in, but I'll asume you don't
want other usecases to crash.)
If you were right, I'd have enough space on 4k + 4k to store that 5k.
Obviously, thousands of systems disagree by crashing with 4K-stacks.
That's most simple logic.
Off cause I may be wrong and the kernels don't crash because of 4K stacks,
but because of bad karma ... But even then, you'd first have to get rid of
that bad karma before defaulting to 4K stacks.
--
Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say:
41. OH, SH*T! (as they scrabble at the keyboard for ^c).
-
